Disarmed by VA Beach police in front of my own house on 04-26-2011

[riverrat10k]

Not to say you did anything wrong, Hendu

I was not there. And you certainly have the right to be armed, especially on your own property.

But, since you mentioned children, If I was to feel the need to call 911, I would probably shield the children and stay in my home. Just my 2 federal reserve notes.

Carry on.

 

[ProShooter]

The key here, is that this is not a situation where a cop randomly walked up to an OC'er on the street and disarmed him.

The cop is responding to a MWAG/brandishing call. At the location, there is a man with a gun. You're damn skippy that I'm going to disarm you. Period. Remove the gun from the situation until we get the facts.

Having been on both sides of the badge, I'd llike to think that I can see both sides of the coin. Some situations I read here and I say to myself, "that cop screwed up". I have zero hesitation in calling a LEO out for a poor judgement call or violation. In this case, I think that the officer did what he should have done in disarming you, and the prudent thing would have been to get the family inside and lock the doors.

 

[Hendu024]

I was not there. And you certainly have the right to be armed, especially on your own property.

But, since you mentioned children, If I was to feel the need to call 911, I would probably shield the children and stay in my home. Just my 2 federal reserve notes.

Carry on.

Just to be clear, I don't have any kids. 'My family' referred to my stepmom, cousin and girlfriend who were also outside. There were kids riding bikes up and down the road, stuff like that. I suppose if I had kids and they were present at the time, I may very well have run and hid. Not really my MO though.

 

[Hendu024]

The key here, is that this is not a situation where a cop randomly walked up to an OC'er on the street and disarmed him.

The cop is responding to a MWAG/brandishing call. At the location, there is a man with a gun. You're damn skippy that I'm going to disarm you. Period. Remove the gun from the situation until we get the facts.

Having been on both sides of the badge, I'd llike to think that I can see both sides of the coin. Some situations I read here and I say to myself, "that cop screwed up". I have zero hesitation in calling a LEO out for a poor judgement call or violation. In this case, I think that the officer did what he should have done in disarming you, and the prudent thing would have been to get the family inside and lock the doors.

And you would have committed a crime as well. Just because you show up to a brandishing call doesn't mean you have the right to start taking weapons immediately. You pull up and see nothing going on, one man LEGALLY carrying a firearm, and you automatically assume it was him. Not a super far leap, but you missed a big step. Police officers are supposed to INVESTIGATE. You show up and there is nothing immediately amiss. No fistfights, arguments, or WW3 going on. How about you start with. "Oh, you're the one who called. Ok, could you tell me what happened sir?" Maybe that's a good way to start a conversation.

 

[ProShooter]

And you would have committed a crime as well. Just because you show up to a brandishing call doesn't mean you have the right to start taking weapons immediately. You pull up and see nothing going on, one man LEGALLY carrying a firearm, and you automatically assume it was him. Not a super far leap, but you missed a big step. Police officers are supposed to INVESTIGATE. You show up and there is nothing immediately amiss. No fistfights, arguments, or WW3 going on. How about you start with. "Oh, you're the one who called. Ok, could you tell me what happened sir?" Maybe that's a good way to start a conversation.

Please tell me what crime was committed.

 

[Citizen]

While everyone is going around in circles arguing about whether the disarm was legal, does anybody actually have any law (case cites) to use in their point-by-point/moment-by-moment analysis?

As far as I can tell, the cop went to the wrong house, spoke to a citizen who was not himself at the correct address, who was not brandishing, then seized that citizen, then seized his gun. All the while, with no RAS that I can see.

Terry requires three things: reasonable suspicion about the detainee and crime + reasonable suspicion the suspect is armed + reasonable suspicion the detainee is presently dangerous.

As Hendu said, the cop started walking up the driveway to talk to him before noticing the gun. Plainly the cop didn't think he was the brandisher, especially when Hendu told the cop which was the correct house and that he was the one who called before the cop started up the driveway.

I'm thinking the cop walked up the driveway to get more info from Hendu about what he witnessed, as an alternative to walking up to the door of the correct house and trying a knock-and-talk. As he started up the driveway, the cop would have no RAS Hendu was actually the brandisher. That the police quickly stowed Hendu's gun and went to the correct house, shows their level of suspicion.

It looks to me like the cop over-reacted and seized both Hendu and the gun.

I am willing to be wrong, though,--IF someone supplies the relevant case law.

 

[skidmark]

Now that everybody has had a chance to throw opinions around, it might be time to analyze the situation.

Hendu024 has stated his displeasure with being disarmed and repeated the feeling that he was unfairly treated. Proshooter and Wylde possibly have offered the most cogent explanations of why they think Hendu024 got disarmed, and many others have chimed in with various thoughts on how getting wrapped up with the cops might or might not have been accomplished if Hendu024 had just followed their advice after the fact instead of doing what he did before any advice was offered. Hendu024 remains perturbed about how he was treated and at least as upset with heatring folks suggest that the way he behaved was "wrong" or "improper" or "not the best way to deal with the situation" and also feels that folks offering advice misunderstood stuff he did not really explain clearly anyhow about family and neighborhood children and the state of his backyard as opposed to pictures posted on Google Maps.

The cop arrived on scene knowing that he was sent there because there was A Man With A Gun. The first Man With A gun he saw apparently was Hendu024, so he got all defensive and self-protective and made Hendu024 assume the position and did not want to hold a discussion about who called 911 or who was or was not the real Person Of Interest - probably because he wanted to not be shot if it turned out the first guy he saw With A Gun turned out to be the object of the exercise after all.

Now Hendu024 probably has every right to feel he was ill-treated because he not only did nothing bad or illegal or criminal but was actually trying to be a Good Guy about the whole thing - and the cops treat him like he was the bad guy.

But Hendu024 is really not ready to listen and actually hear much about that, let alone ready to hear suggestions by a bunch of folks with perfect hindsight who were not there and don't even understand the full story who want to tell him what they think he did wrong - or at least not perfectly - and then tell him what they think he ought to have done instead.

And yes, "officer safety" is the poorest excuse for trampling on both civil rights and causing feelings of frustration and helplessness and outrage, as well as possibly (yes, I'm really way out on the limb here but what the heck, let's let it all hang out) embarassment. But it happens. Maybe some day in the future cops will realize that it might just help to unruffle feathers and buy heaps of goodwill to come back later when it's time to give the good guy back his gun and say something that sort of sounds like an apology for inconveniencing him while stuff got investigated and sorted out and we're giving you back you gun because we know now, after investigating and sorting things out, that you were the good guy and not the bad giy. Maybe - but I for one am not going to hold my breath waiting for that day to come.

So!

Can we ALL now slow down and take a deep breath? Hooooollllld it. Now, sloooowwwwly let it out. Annnnnd breathe.

Now you all stop focusing on how YOU feel and think about how the other guy was feeling. Think about it for a few minutes. And then you all go and play nicely together.

Yes, you DO have to play nicely with the policemen, too. YES YOU DO! Or I'll write another skreed, so help me I will!

stay safe.

 

[ProShooter]

Now that everybody has had a chance to throw opinions around, it might be time to analyze the situation.

Hendu024 has stated his displeasure with being disarmed and repeated the feeling that he was unfairly treated. Proshooter and Wylde possibly have offered the most cogent explanations of why they think Hendu024 got disarmed, and many others have chimed in with various thoughts on how getting wrapped up with the cops might or might not have been accomplished if Hendu024 had just followed their advice after the fact instead of doing what he did before any advice was offered. Hendu024 remains perturbed about how he was treated and at least as upset with heatring folks suggest that the way he behaved was "wrong" or "improper" or "not the best way to deal with the situation" and also feels that folks offering advice misunderstood stuff he did not really explain clearly anyhow about family and neighborhood children and the state of his backyard as opposed to pictures posted on Google Maps.

The cop arrived on scene knowing that he was sent there because there was A Man With A Gun. The first Man With A gun he saw apparently was Hendu024, so he got all defensive and self-protective and made Hendu024 assume the position and did not want to hold a discussion about who called 911 or who was or was not the real Person Of Interest - probably because he wanted to not be shot if it turned out the first guy he saw With A Gun turned out to be the object of the exercise after all.

Now Hendu024 probably has every right to feel he was ill-treated because he not only did nothing bad or illegal or criminal but was actually trying to be a Good Guy about the whole thing - and the cops treat him like he was the bad guy.

But Hendu024 is really not ready to listen and actually hear much about that, let alone ready to hear suggestions by a bunch of folks with perfect hindsight who were not there and don't even understand the full story who want to tell him what they think he did wrong - or at least not perfectly - and then tell him what they think he ought to have done instead.

And yes, "officer safety" is the poorest excuse for trampling on both civil rights and causing feelings of frustration and helplessness and outrage, as well as possibly (yes, I'm really way out on the limb here but what the heck, let's let it all hang out) embarassment. But it happens. Maybe some day in the future cops will realize that it might just help to unruffle feathers and buy heaps of goodwill to come back later when it's time to give the good guy back his gun and say something that sort of sounds like an apology for inconveniencing him while stuff got investigated and sorted out and we're giving you back you gun because we know now, after investigating and sorting things out, that you were the good guy and not the bad giy. Maybe - but I for one am not going to hold my breath waiting for that day to come.

So!

Can we ALL now slow down and take a deep breath? Hooooollllld it. Now, sloooowwwwly let it out. Annnnnd breathe.

Now you all stop focusing on how YOU feel and think about how the other guy was feeling. Think about it for a few minutes. And then you all go and play nicely together.

Yes, you DO have to play nicely with the policemen, too. YES YOU DO! Or I'll write another skreed, so help me I will!

stay safe.

Poetry....pure poetry.

Well played, sir.

 

[Grapeshot]

Think about it for a few minutes. And then you all go and play nicely together.

Yes, you DO have to play nicely with the policemen, too. YES YOU DO! Or I'll write another skreed, so help me I will!

stay safe.

Promise? Pretty please.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP The cop arrived on scene knowing that he was sent there because there was A Man With A Gun...

I disagree. The cop went there on a report of a man brandishing at specific address.

The cop took a few moments looking for the address. Then Hendu pointed out the correct address and identified himself as the 911 caller. The cop nodded and started walking toward Hendu.

Nothing for RAS. The cop just saw a gun (unbrandished, holstered, by a calm citizen) and started the drill unthinkingly.

Essentially the pro-seizure posters are saying that mere carry of a firearm in the vicinity of a gun crime is RAS. This is not a position we can afford to concede to unthinking police who want maximum lattitude to play cops-and-robbers and remove all danger to themselves because, you know, they just want to go home safe at night.

What if Nap, Grapeshot, and I were all neighbors and were in each OCing in our own driveways when the police arrived. Are we saying the police would be justified to seize all of us and disarm us? Just because of some nebulous connection between men, the same street, and guns? Because, I think that is what this is really going to boil down to--since OCd guns are not common yet, any OCd gun is justification for police to suspend inquiry and judgement, and just start seizing gunner and gun if in the vicinity of a reported gun offense.

 

[Claytron]

We neither give our rights nor the potential need for self-defense because we have called 911.

Suggesting that it is somehow prudent is IMO silly.

What i find to be silly is you trying to convince us that your main concern is safety hear. You may not give up your need for self defense just by calling 911, but after calling them because you feel threatened by a man who is waving a gun around its just silly to outside and wait to see what happens not only because you obviously felt unsafe enough to call the cops but also because of the nature of the call.

"someones waving a gun around over here and i dont feel safe, can you send the cops? Thanks" ....... and then you go BACK outside/stay outside where this threatening situation is taking place? It just doesnt make sense.

Like i said a right is a right but a little common sense goes a LONG way, especially in a drop dead simple situation like this. He felt threatened by a man with a gun but he never tried to leave the area. Is it about rights? No its about SAFETY. Some of you guys seem to forget that you carry for protection not for politics.

 

[t33j]

What i find to be silly is you trying to convince us that your main concern is safety hear. You may not give up your need for self defense just by calling 911, but after calling them because you feel threatened by a man who is waving a gun around its just silly to outside and wait to see what happens not only because you obviously felt unsafe enough to call the cops but also because of the nature of the call.

"someones waving a gun around over here and i dont feel safe, can you send the cops? Thanks" ....... and then you go BACK outside/stay outside where this threatening situation is taking place? It just doesnt make sense.

Like i said a right is a right but a little common sense goes a LONG way, especially in a drop dead simple situation like this. He felt threatened by a man with a gun but he never tried to leave the area. Is it about rights? No its about SAFETY. Some of you guys seem to forget that you carry for protection not for politics.

The OP never said anything about safety. He simply reported what he saw as a crime (perhaps he thought it was his civic duty to do so) and went back about his business. I sure as hell would have acted differently if I didn't feel safe. (Find cover, discretely draw my gun, alert the other people around me...) The OP seemed to recognize that the altercation he perceived earlier was over and that there was no immediate threat to himself.

 

[Claytron]

I disagree. The cop went there on a report of a man brandishing at specific address.

The cop took a few moments looking for the address. Then Hendu pointed out the correct address and identified himself as the 911 caller. The cop nodded and started walking toward Hendu.

Nothing for RAS. The cop just saw a gun (unbrandished, holstered, by a calm citizen) and started the drill unthinkingly.

Essentially the pro-seizure posters are saying that mere carry of a firearm in the vicinity of a gun crime is RAS. This is not a position we can afford to concede to unthinking police who want maximum lattitude to play cops-and-robbers and remove all danger to themselves because, you know, they just want to go home safe at night.

What if Nap, Grapeshot, and I were all neighbors and were in each OCing in our own driveways when the police arrived. Are we saying the police would be justified to seize all of us and disarm us? Just because of some nebulous connection between men, the same street, and guns? Because, I think that is what this is really going to boil down to--since OCd guns are not common yet, any OCd gun is justification for police to suspend inquiry and judgement, and just start seizing gunner and gun if in the vicinity of a reported gun offense.

One thing i have to ask is do you really think its THAT far fetched for a criminal to try pointing a cop in another direction in an attempt to evade arrest? The cop was sent there on a MWAG call and, as far as we have been told, was not informed by hendu that he, the caller, was in fact carrying and/or dressed in such and such clothing. Is he required to say all that? No im sure he isnt but would it have helped in this situation? Im guessing it would have, personally.

 

[peter nap]

Some of you guys seem to forget that you carry for protection not for politics.

Speak for yourself Claytron. You assume too much!

 

[Grapeshot]

I disagree. The cop went there on a report of a man brandishing at specific address.

The cop took a few moments looking for the address. Then Hendu pointed out the correct address and identified himself as the 911 caller. The cop nodded and started walking toward Hendu.

Nothing for RAS. The cop just saw a gun (unbrandished, holstered, by a calm citizen) and started the drill unthinkingly.

Essentially the pro-seizure posters are saying that mere carry of a firearm in the vicinity of a gun crime is RAS. This is not a position we can afford to concede to unthinking police who want maximum lattitude to play cops-and-robbers and remove all danger to themselves because, you know, they just want to go home safe at night.

What if Nap, Grapeshot, and I were all neighbors and were in each OCing in our own driveways when the police arrived. Are we saying the police would be justified to seize all of us and disarm us? Just because of some nebulous connection between men, the same street, and guns? Because, I think that is what this is really going to boil down to--since OCd guns are not common yet, any OCd gun is justification for police to suspend inquiry and judgement, and just start seizing gunner and gun if in the vicinity of a reported gun offense.

Yep, that about says it.

BTW - if you can make breakfast in Richmond tomorrow, I'll buy.

 

[Claytron]

Speak for yourself Claytron. You ASSume too much!

Well snippy comments aside if you do in fact carry only for political reasons then i dont feel ashamed to say that you are indeed a ******** *** ***** *** Thanks for pulling the right to bear arms back a step just so you can feel cool when you bring your shiny gun to the crackerbarrel and have your kids hand out pro-gun fliers...

--Direct insult/personal attacked deleted by Moderator--
This entire post is seriously "over the line." Cease!

Oh sorry, I was responding to the offensive poster who made a comment directed at me just to insult me. Its a few posts back, its been reported twice but is still up.

 

[Citizen]

One thing i have to ask is do you really think its THAT far fetched for a criminal to try pointing a cop in another direction in an attempt to evade arrest? The cop was sent there on a MWAG call and, as far as we have been told, was not informed by hendu that he, the caller, was in fact carrying and/or dressed in such and such clothing. Is he required to say all that? No im sure he isnt but would it have helped in this situation? Im guessing it would have, personally.

We've all seen this line before. It boils down to "anything the police can dream up, no matter how unlikely, or far-fetched, can be used as a reason to do what they want until a court says otherwise."

Its pretty simple. While the courts do not require police to exclude all innocent explanations, neither do the courts require that police ignore innocent explanations, nor do the courts require police to suspend using their brains and judgement.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Some of you guys seem to forget that you carry for protection not for politics.

I wanted to carry for protection.

Brady-minded people and government made it "politics." Forcing me to make it political, too.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP BTW - if you can make breakfast in Richmond tomorrow, I'll buy.

Is that offer transferrable?

 

[peter nap]

Is that offer transferrable?

Can't say about Grape but I'll buy your breakfast if you show.:lol: